U.S. Code » Title 19 » Chapter CHAPTER 4— TARIFF ACT OF 1930 › Subtitle SUBTITLE IV— COUNTERVAILING AND ANTIDUMPING DUTIES › Part Part IV— General Provisions

19 U.S.C. § 1677g

Interest on certain overpayments and underpayments

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) General ruleInterest shall be payable on overpayments and underpayments of amounts deposited on merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on and after—(1) the date of publication of a countervailing or antidumping duty order under this subtitle or section 1303 11 See References in Text note below. of this title, or(2) the date of a finding under the Antidumping Act, 1921.(b) Rate

The rate of interest payable under subsection (a) for any period of time is the rate of interest established under section 6621 of title 26 for such period.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title VII, § 778, as added Pub. L. 96–39, title I, § 101, July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 188; amended Pub. L. 98–573, title VI, § 621, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3039; Pub. L. 99–514, § 2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 1303 of this title, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), is defined in section 1677(26) of this title to mean section 1330 as in effect on the day before Jan. 1, 1995.

The Antidumping Act, 1921, referred to in subsec. (a)(2), is act May 27, 1921, ch. 14, title II, 42 Stat. 11, which was classified generally to sections 160 to 171 of this title, and was repealed by Pub. L. 96–39, title I, § 106(a), July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 193.

Amendments

1986—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–514 substituted “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” for “Internal Revenue Code of 1954”, which for purposes of codification was translated as “title 26” thus requiring no change in text.

1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–573 amended subsec. (a) generally, substituting provisions making interest payable on and after the date of publication of a countervailing or antidumping duty order under this subtitle or section 1303 of this title or the date of a finding under the Antidumping Act, 1921 for provisions making interest payable on and after the date on which notice of an affirmative determination by the Commission under section 1671d(b) or 1673d(b) of this title with respect to such merchandise was published.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–573 amended subsec. (b) generally, substituting provisions that the rate of interest payable under subsec. (a) for any period of time is the rate of interest established under section 6621 of title 26 for such period for provision that the rate at which such interest was payable would be 8 percent per annum or, if higher, the rate in effect under section 6621 of title 26 on the date on which the rate or amount of the duty was finally determined.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–573 applicable with respect to merchandise that is unliquidated on or after Nov. 4, 1984, see section 626(b)(4) of Pub. L. 98–573, set out as a note under section 1671 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: Canadian Fur Trappers Corp. v. United States, 691 F. Supp. 364 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Canadian Fur Trappers Corp. v. United States, 691 F. Supp. 364 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1988). · cites it 16× “§ 1504 , and whether interest was properly assessed under 19 U.S.C. § 1677g. If the merchandise was deemed liquidated, the additional countervailing duties determined to be due from the annual reviews of the countervailing duty order would not be assessed.”
Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). · cites it 12× “Did Customs properly assess interest on Fujitsu’s entries under 19 U.S.C. § 1677g? A. Background Upon publication of an antidumping duty order, importers are required to deposit with Customs estimated antidumping duties on entries subject to the order pending ultimate…”
New Zealand Lamb Co., Inc. v. United States, 40 F.3d 377 (Fed. Cir. 1994). · cites it 5× “Customs, however, being of the view that such interest was owing under 19 U.S.C. § 1677g (1988), billed New Zealand Lamb for the interest on March 23, 1990.”
Gates v. Raytheon Co., 584 F.3d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “1989) (discussing 19 U.S.C. § 1677g). Accordingly, because the amount of interest owed under § 422(h)(4) is calculated using the rate set out in § 6621, our precedent requires that it be compounded.”
Canadian Fur Trappers Corp., & Meldisco, a Div. of Melville Corp. v. The United States, Defendant/cross-Appellant, 884 F.2d 563 (Fed. Cir. 1989). · cites it 4× “Since the liquidations were valid, and since the estimated duties deposited were less than the assessed duties, the Court of International Trade also granted the government partial summary judgment with regard to the interest owed by the importers pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677g…”
Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. (Successor-In-Interest to Teknika Elec. Corp.) v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “In so holding, we rejected the government’s argument that, by operation of 19 U.S.C. § 1677g (1988), the eight liquidations for increased countervailing duties amounted to assessments of interest, irrespective of whether interest was mentioned in the bulletin notices liquidating…”
Timken Co. v. United States, 18 Ct. Int'l Trade 1 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994). · cites it 7× “Payment of Interest on Bonds: Once again, Timken argues before this Court that 19 U.S.C. § 1677g (1988) 5 requires the ITA to collect interest on underdeposits of anti-dumping duties when such deposits are in the form of bonds posted by *11 an importer for entries made under…”
United States v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 2015 CIT 141 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015). · cites it 9× “Government Is Not Entitled to § 1677g Interest The Government argues it is entitled to pre-liquidation interest pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677g 27 on the entries at issue in court number 09-491.”
Am. Hi-Fi Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 936 F. Supp. 1032 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996). · cites it 11× “According to these instructions, Commerce directed Customs to liquidate entries of televisions subject to the dumping ordered entered between March 1, 1986 and February 28, 1987 and as follows: The assessment of antidumping duties by the Customs Service is subject to the…”
Hilex Poly Co. v. United States, 2020 CIT 77 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). · cites it 7× “17-00090 Page 4 antidumping and countervailing duties that accrued pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677g (“Section 1677g interest”)4 and post-liquidation interest that accrued pursuant to 19 U.”
Am. Drew v. United States, 2020 CIT 76 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2020). · cites it 7× “Interest under the CDSOA In administering the CDSOA, Customs treated differently two types of interest that pertain to antidumping and countervailing duties: pre-liquidation interest on under-deposited antidumping and countervailing duties that accrued pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §…”
The Timken Co. v. The United States, Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., Koyo Corp. of U.S.A., Inc., Nsk, Ltd. & Nsk Corp., 37 F.3d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1994). · cites it 5× “This explanation of ESP does not refer to profits or contravene the conventional meaning of “commissions.” In sum, the record shows no error in the trial court’s reading of section 1677a(e)(l).”
Show all 68 citing cases →
— 19 U.S.C. § 1677g(a) — 19 cases
Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. (Successor-In-Interest to Teknika Elec. Corp.) v. United States, 283 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “In so holding, we rejected the government’s argument that, by operation of 19 U.S.C. § 1677g (1988), the eight liquidations for increased countervailing duties amounted to assessments of interest, irrespective of whether interest was mentioned in the bulletin notices liquidating…”
The Timken Co. v. The United States, Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., Koyo Corp. of U.S.A., Inc., Nsk, Ltd. & Nsk Corp., 37 F.3d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “This explanation of ESP does not refer to profits or contravene the conventional meaning of “commissions.” In sum, the record shows no error in the trial court’s reading of section 1677a(e)(l).”
Am. Hi-Fi Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 936 F. Supp. 1032 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996). “According to these instructions, Commerce directed Customs to liquidate entries of televisions subject to the dumping ordered entered between March 1, 1986 and February 28, 1987 and as follows: The assessment of antidumping duties by the Customs Service is subject to the…”
LG Elec. U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1421 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1997).
New Zealand Lamb Co., Inc. v. United States, 40 F.3d 377 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “Customs, however, being of the view that such interest was owing under 19 U.S.C. § 1677g (1988), billed New Zealand Lamb for the interest on March 23, 1990.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1677g(a)(1) — 1 case
Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. v. United States, 2023 CIT 81 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2023).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1677g(a)(1994) — 1 case
Queen's Flowers de Colombia v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1122 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996).
— 19 U.S.C. § 1677g(a)(l) — 1 case
United States v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 2015 CIT 141 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015). “Government Is Not Entitled to § 1677g Interest The Government argues it is entitled to pre-liquidation interest pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677g 27 on the entries at issue in court number 09-491.”
— 19 U.S.C. § 1677g(b) — 7 cases
Fujitsu Gen. Am., Inc. v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2000). “Did Customs properly assess interest on Fujitsu’s entries under 19 U.S.C. § 1677g? A. Background Upon publication of an antidumping duty order, importers are required to deposit with Customs estimated antidumping duties on entries subject to the order pending ultimate…”
New Zealand Lamb Co., Inc. v. United States, 40 F.3d 377 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “Customs, however, being of the view that such interest was owing under 19 U.S.C. § 1677g (1988), billed New Zealand Lamb for the interest on March 23, 1990.”
United States v. Six Star Wholesale, Inc., 2019 CIT 8 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2019).
Tembec, Inc. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1393 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2007).
United States v. NYCC 1959 Inc., 2016 CIT 83 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.